Pentax Ricoh discontinues K-01 K-mount mirrorless camera

Pentax Ricoh has moved its K-01 K-mount mirrorless camera to the 'discontinued' section of its website after just 12 months on the market, following steep discounts to its price in recent weeks. The unconventional-looking K-01 used a full-depth Pentax K lens mount but relied on contrast-detection AF, rather than the phase-detection systems for which all autofocus K-mount lenses have been primarily designed.

Designed by Marc Newson, the K-01 was one of the most unusual-looking cameras we've ever used, and the full-depth K-mount made it one of the largest mirrorless camera's we've ever reviewed, too.

At this year's Consumer Electronics show, we asked a Pentax representative whether there would be a K-02, but received a determined 'no comment' in response. It is possible that the K-01's role could be taken by a long-rumored K-mount module for Ricoh's GXR system.

Comments

Despite its many frustrating features (and I keep finding more) this is a great little camera at an unbeatable price that takes some amazing pictures. Macro pictures in bright sunlight are difficult - focus peaking only works if you can see the screen! The rubber door is inane and the On/Off switch keeps bumping to On. Perhaps this camera is a good candidate for Eye-Fi. However I have been asked to do the photography for a music festival (indoor) and I have opted for the K-01 with a Sigma 17-70/2.8.

Pentax really got it wrong with the K1; - (darned shame though, as it cost them a good few quid to bring it to market). The design alone would suggest that it's designer; (Marc Newson) is a designer of basic/low cost outhouses or beach huts.

It was a camera that made no one happy. Looked too toy-like for enthusiasts, too loaded and expensive for beginners. If the original MSRP was the same as current street price, it would have sold more (perhaps).

I'm sure it's a fine piece of photographic equipment, with a good heart, natural maternal instincts, compassionate, etc..., but the shallow ones in the group, such as myself, will never give her a chance because SHE'S BUTT UGLY!!!

@Trolls- we must be looking at different RAW files because the K-01 RAW files are actually pretty darn good. But then ultimately it's the photographer who creates an image, so if someone doesn't have what it takes to take a good photo, getting a better camera is not going to really help.

It does give superior results. Name one camera that gives better results for less then $349 new. hell, name one camera for less then $700.. the only cameras to match it are the Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5.

who gives a rat's butt if its ugly, does anyone go through your photo album and say "oh, i dont like that picture because you took it with a colorful camera made of plastic??" I'll admit, the K01 doesnt look business, but i dont find nikon D1x or canon 5d III attractive to look at either.

The K01 at launch price was a joke, but when it dropped to $349, i sold off all my sony gear and picked one up. It has better IQ plus i have $800 left over in my wallet.

I think a lot of people that don't like the k-01 haven't used one or held one. The design has really grown on me. I don't own one personally, but if I had $300 laying around I'd buy one tomorrow. This is a camera that has won awards and was one of the most talked about cameras in 2012. It was a total failure, sure, but I think that there wasn't enough to make the system initially appealing. A fast zoom lens that recessed into the body would have been a nice demonstrator. The price was also far too high initially. I've used my k-5 in live view to get a feel for what using a k-01 would be like and found it lacking personally. I never liked any of the point and shoots either for that reason, but I did make them work. On a tripod this would be perfectly fine though as I always use live view. An evf, even on the hotshoe would make this a lot more attractive.....wait for version 2. It will come one day.

What is with all the anger here? Some of you act like the K-01 was somehow single handedly destroying photography. At least half the posters here have never laid a finger on a K-01 or seen it in person. How the heck do you know ANYTHING about this camera? Goodness let it go! And dont pretend that this is the first discontinued camera ever. Goodness you cant swing a dead cat an not hit a Panasonic or Olympus M43 on clearance 9 months after introduction.

Sounds like you are the angry one. People have the right to dislike this camera. Whether they have seen one in person or used one is not the point. If a camera looks so ugly that someone does not want to be caught in public with one, then it is already a failure. Frankly, the chimney looking thing on that camera is distinctive but ugly. It is the same with food. If it looks so gross that you won't even want to take a bite or even touch it, then it deserves to fail.

@Anstigmat - I totally understand someone thinking its ugly but to go on about it being hard to hold, bulky or bad button placement when you have never picked one up? I personally dont like the vast majority of M43 cameras because of their form factor - too small - but that is based on having picked them up and used them. Same for Canon DSLRs - they just dont agree with me - something I learned after trying a friends for a few days. Yet the folks cheering the loudest about the demise of the K-01 have never even seen one in person let alone used it. Whatever. Their loss.

Pentax did well with this camera. Design is a matter of preference and ergonomics partially a matter of holding style and hand size. I own a K-01 and I can say with confidence that it is a superb camera. Pentax has updated its firmware and the AF speed & low light AF issues have been resolved.

If you have never used one, especially after its phenomenal price reduction, you're simply missing out. I have used and owned a large number of Pentax DSLRs and currently the only Pentax K-mount body I prefer to use is K-01. Personally, I love its design and -with a light/compact lens- the ergonomics are very sufficient.

it is disappointed to see many who are happy K01 is done has never ever use one and i wonder what is the value for those comments. i will be glad to see someone come up here and share all the nonsense being a K01 owner, that's constructive! well, anyone?

all camera got pros and cons. many pretty looking camera give BS pictures. K01 may be ugly but it gives beautiful pictures!!

yes, i am a fanboy, camera fanboy, i shot many systems as habit and learning so you can save your Pentax fanboy comment just in case. write something more constructive, please.

wish your pretty or "mirrorless must be this and that" camera gives you pretty pictures as a successful camera should be.

The canons-nikons have had their own flops and their own manufacturing defects. There were light leaks on one of the canon dslr's, and the nikon V2 looks like marc newson could have given it some badly needed design help (same with entire PS G15 line and the NEX's, as far as I'm concerned). Disagree that K-01 is in any way ungainly in the hand. It lends itself to a solid grip and thus better view-screen shooting than anything I've handled. Big enough for a good, long-lasting battery in common with my K-7 and K-5. And rubbish to all the noise about the rubber SD card flap. It's fine. Intuitive menus, great feel to the buttons and dials and the pop-up. Maybe you need to own one to know it, but the K-01 is a solid camera capable of great images, and I didn't need to buy a single lens for it.

Clint - I said nothing about the "look" of K-01 at all. My original post is about K-01's functionality as a camera and how it suits me personally. And too Myari, I never disputed his opinion that K-01 was, in his words, a flop. I merely pointed out that other brands have their share of the same problems as complained of in the K-01, and then I stuck to how the K-01 suits me. I didn't dispute "flop" and I didn't dwell on how good (or bad, for that matter) I think K-01 "looks." I addressed function. You and Myari are apparently fixated on flaming people who like the K-01 at all. Since I like it for its functionality, not its "success" or "looks" please leave me alone.

Drummercan - I actually don't care what you think about the K01...if it works for you great. Call me shallow but I like things to work well AND look good...so for me the K01 is a pass. There are a tonne of cameras out there and almost all of them will give world class photos....so I figure why not buy one that looks good too:)

oh, just realize where are all these non constructive, bias, personal nonsense come from. only because many having their pretty camera are not getting better or actually having worse photo than an ugly camera (pretty and ugly in their own opinion). while you can't respect other's opinion and what makes you think we should care about yours!! call me shallow!!

Simple cause of death: it makes no sense to own a mirrorless camera with a SLR's register distance. If the lenses and camera body are no smaller for a given sensor size, then just buy the SLR. It will focus faster and its viewfinder will work better. Pentax tried to cheap out of designing new lenses for a new mount and got exactly the reception they deserved.

IMO the design was fine. Odd but it got people talking. The real problem was that the system as designed had no technical reason to exist.

Reason to exist: low production cost, low users price with HI IQ results. Try to Find an equivalent camera at us299.ManuelV...: Tim missed Pentax point. If you couldn't understand an idea doesn't mean the idea was wrong.wildkat:Try to put in also a darkroom, for images processing, on a LX. Remember today camera body do the process job as laboratory on film days.

If it's selling for $299 that's because it was a flop. No one was buying it at a price that would generate profit for the company. That's not a technical reason for the camera to exist. That just means the camera was a flop.

The fact still is that there is no technical reason for the camera to exist. It has a DSLR mount. It has the space for the mirror, and with the mirror it would focus faster.

Removing the mirror from the camera but leaving empty space means that the camera doesn't have any size/flexibility advantage.

FYI waxwaine its launch price was $749 so I don't think it was designed as a low-cost solution. I mean the concept (no mirror but SLR mount) sort of works as an ultra-budget SLR, but in the end it's not what the market wanted.

If Newson did anything, he at least got people in the photography world talking, particularly the conservative old bags. It's different, no VF, not really that compact..yet it takes pics with outstanding IQ.

I feel quite sorry for Newson; everyone's blaming him but in my opinion it's Pentax's fault for using their full-size DSLR mount, resulting in a completely hobbled design that's too big to use comfortably with the physical styling.

If Pentax had created a new shallow mount the camera could have been half the width, making the control layout more comfortable to use and allowing a whole set of reduced size lenses to be developed rather than a single (slightly awkward focal length) f2.8 pancake. The lenses could also be CDAF optimised rather than all the PDAF optimised lenses which make no sense on a CDAF-only body.

If they'd done that then I'd actually be willing to put money on it having sold quite well and this announcement being the K-02 rather than the discontinuation of the line.

AC...If you dont know what makes a good camera or what would be innovative than telling you the answer will not make you any smarter. there are tens if not hundreds of ways to make a cool camera at this price point.

@Trollshavethebestcandy, my point is there's nothing Newson could have done to make it a success given Pentax's technical requirements for the camera. All you seem to have been doing is criticising Newson for "ugly design" when it's clearly a poorly thought out specification from Pentax that's to blame, so I ask again given the same technical spec for the camera what would *you* have done that Newson didn't?

@Trollshavethebestcandy, my point is there's nothing Newson could have done to make it a success given Pentax's technical requirements for the camera. All you seem to have been doing is criticising Newson for "ugly design" when it's clearly a poorly thought out specification from Pentax that's to blame, so I ask again given the same technical spec for the camera what would *you* have done that Newson didn't?

I disagree but the ugly did not help. Liken it to a home. It may be nice on the inside but you would chose another house if you could that had better curb appeal.

A much shorter list would be what is not ugly about it starting with the concept then the form, toy like appearance, excecution and working our way down to the stove pipe dial in front to the grip ect ect. It hit about every branch falling down out of the ugly tree. Dont get me started on the yellow one.

Id like an EVF option, inbuilt, in ko2 and they will sell them. There is a great and acheivable product design in ko2 just by reading commebts of this thread. First company to directly use mirrorless tech to support native brand lensmount. Bad start but we all saw this cameras demise on the horizon. Thats not to say a few revisions and we would have a solid product. Pentax is brining the fight to cost/benefit APSC - DONT RETREAT!

I agree. I hope Pentax spends some time reading the comments. It is not hard to identify the trend:1. People will buy any camera that takes good pictures, no matter what it looks like.2. People will only go crazy for a camera if it is well above average in some way. 3. If you have a camera with average AF, average size, average IQ and average looks, people will only buy it when the price is attractive.4. That means average cameras end up on the discount rack, which is not where you want your product.

Dear Pentax: Either make it faster, smaller, or better. If you don't do one of those three, then the only thing you can do is make it cheaper.

If Pentax ever releases a K-02, they don't need to come up with some ground-breaking k-01 or GXR type configuration. Just stick in the awesome K-5 II sensor with 14-bit color and it will give the X-Pro 1 and NEX-7 a run for its money.

I really liked the design. the image qualitiy was very very good for this class and for anyone with pentax lenses this would have been a great option to go mirrorless or have a second body. I was astonished how many people complained about the looks, almost everybody here as it would be a hasselblad lunar. Pentax should make a Ko2 with more manual control, faster foucus, 24mp, and slightly less bulkier looks...

It is really not for sports at all in my opinion, nor for 'machine gun' style social reportage. The focus is very much improved by recent firmware updates - not quite as quick as a dslr but not so slow as to become an issue for me at least.

With the kit 40mm XS it arguably has the best IQ/price ratio of any digital camera currently available (and therefore in the history of digital imaging?) and has the ability to mount the fabulous Pentax Limited lenses without an adapter.

For me its size and weight advantage versus a dslr makes sense, it is the perfect second camera or walkaround, without sacrificing image quality. I wouldn't buy it for speed though. Over on the Pentax forum there are BIF shots using the K-01 but I don't have personal experience in that kind of shooting.

Update the FW to 1.02, and you'll find the AF comments would be different. Not amazing by many standards, but impressively better. Still, owners can determine how it works best for them, and non-owners will move blissfully forward. The closeout prices are amazing for a camera using the 16Mpix Sony sensor, that's what put one in my bag.

Memo to all companies who pretend to "redefine" the mirrorless market:the market is micro-4:3rd. Full stop. Don't waste any more time with "parallel streams" and other such marketing devices to make you waste money and resources. And FIRE the nincompoops who keep telling you to "redefine" the market!No? OK, keep running to the edge of the abyss...

If you wouldn't get a mirrorless camera if it was free you obviously have more money than sense. Some of the best cameras on the market today without a doubt, but you stick with whatever it is you use.

papillon is being a bit harsh, but he does make valid points on the Pentax mis-cue in the mirrorless market. I don't know if Pentax was trying to re-define the segment with this camera, but it did lack in two key features; focus and EVF.

Looks are subjective and an objective user can look beyond to evaluate an item. The look of the camera is a secondary issue IMHO.

The focus issues have kept me away from this model - and I'm a Pentax user, but at the current price point I'm be willing to suffer through a slow focus.

I think Pentax really misunderstood the MILC market; hence the Q and the K-01. But, the camera companies in general have misunderstood the market. They seem to think that MILCs will appeal only to novice or recreational users; people who are "intimidated" by dslr's and that mirrorless is only a "step up" format.

In truth, MILCs are serious tools and in markets outside Japan professionals and serious amateurs are the ones who are primarily interested in mirrorless.

I would recommend that you grab one of these. I don't know what kind of photography you do, but I mostly do portraits and landscapes, so AF speed is really a non-issue for me. Also, the K-01 has focus-peaking, so using MF is simple despite the lack of an EVF.

"Looks are subjective and an objective user can look beyond to evaluate an item. The look of the camera is a secondary issue IMHO."Except that in this case "the look" is the camera. It is defined first and foremost by the self-conscious design statement it makes.

Pentax did not misunderstood the MILC market, they understood the Japanese MILC market quite well since that is their main market. AFAIK the K01 is quite popular and the Q is one of the best selling cameras there whick also became the number 1 selling camera there and is hugely popular.

I think it`s a shame, at the studio comparison tool, the IQ is one of the best I have ever seen. There is no need to complaint about the design, just buy something else, IMO I think it could bring some new ideas to the manufacturers... They are so short minded nowadays that all we see is some vintage designs coming back, where is the creativity?

The problem with the K-01 was not so much its looks, but that it was always at a loss to find its own spot. It was too big for a CSC camera, too small and fiddly to replace a DSLR. And, for its price at the time of launch, you could have bought a K-r body, or even a K-x, and you'd have got a proper handgrip and an optical viewfinder without adding too much to the bulk. Of course, when the K-30 came, Pentax buried the K-01. The latter's advantage of allowing K lenses to be mounted became irrelevant (and so did its image quality) in face of its flaws. I don't see why people should hesitate in choosing the K-30 over the K-01.Pentax could have done much better, but apparently they were too jaded to understand the market's demands.And being fugly didn't help the K-01's case...

I agree with you. I own a K-01. I bought it when it hit $300 to have as a second camera to my K5. I did think of getting a K30 instead but the price drop of the K-01 convinced me otherwise. While it does take great pictures I really miss a view finder on it. At least an optional one like Olympus does would be great. I don't mind the looks but it is a bit awkward to hold with a solid lens mounted. With my 15mm limited mounted it is very front heavy. It wont even stand on it's base if placed on a flat surface. This camera has become my tripod landscape camera. If it had a flip screen it would be so much better for my use but I guess I can't complain as it only cost me $300 and delivers outstanding image quality. But in the end I sort of wish I would have spent the extra and got the K30. :(

Reading these comments it seems that I am largely alone in my opinion of this camera; I think it's a great camera and it's a shame it's being discontinued. I too thought that the design was ugly when I first saw the press releases on this site last year, but I still wanted one because it was a cheap way to get into the K-mount and the quality of the sensor was on par with the K-5. After I recieved the camera and held it in my hands I began to appreciate the design and the high quality construction. I liked it so much I bought another one because I new that the camera would soon be discontinued. I bought my K-01's 3 weeks ago, so I was able to take advantage of the low price they sell for now. I hope that Pentax continues with this concept but the next camera in this line should have vast improvements to autofocus, ergonomy, and an EVF should be added.

I hardly think the K-01 failed because most people care more about how a camera *looks* than the images it produces. People who think that way are more interested in bling than photography. Any self respecting photographer would prefer K-01 IQ to anything m43.

IMO the K-01 didn't succeed because Pentax missed the point of why people want a mirrorless camera--which should be smaller and lighter than a DSLR. Sony succeeded with the NEX because they put a very good sensor in a small light weight body, that retained a VF and included a flip out screen. But that also entailed a whole new line of *lighter* lenses to keep the weight down.

You clearly didn't read the initial comments on here when it was released, derision doesn't even begin to cover it. If people think it looks cr@p then they're hardly going to bother going to a shop to try one are they? (let alone order one online.). It failed because it looks rubbish and it doesn't offer the main advantages of the format, it's as simple as that.

A camera isn't only either its looks or its image quality, it's also about how well it handles as a tool. A camera can look amazing and take the best photos, but if it isn't enjoyable to actually use it then you're likely to use a different camera.

The problem with the K-01 is that it doesn't make a good tool, the image quality is no better than Pentax DSLRs, it's large, the controls are poorly placed and has relatively slow autofocus.

When compared to Pentax's DSLR line there's almost no reason to pick it apart from its unique look, and worse many reasons not to pick it.

"the main advantages of the format". That would be NO MIRROR wouldn't it? Please don't say small body (with large coke can lenses attached) because that's not an advantage. The K01 is a nice looking camera to anyone with an eye for design and it's obvious to me, from all this gleeful vitriol, that there's something else in play here. I think the lesson to Pentax in this should be "don't waste your time trying to bring a new aesthetic to cameras because most *photographers* aren't artistically sophisticated enough to appreciate it". There must be some reason for why most cameras in this market segment pretty much all look the same.

Entirely predictable, a concept so FUBAR it defies belief that anyone thought it could work. A large mirrorless camera with no evf, slow af and brightly coloured lights. Great for the Manga teens but if anyone had actually asked any semi serious photographer whether they would be seen dead with it then they would have had their answer, and saved themselves an awful lot of money.Sorry Pentax lovers but there is a lot more to a camera than having a nice sensor and pretty coloured lights. Please don't tell me I'm a design dinosaur who "doesn't get it", I laughed at it when it was released and I'm laughing now, a classic case of "The emperors new clothes" I'm afraid. If you want to do something radical at least ensure that you include the advantages of the chosen format and make it functional. Two of the biggest advantages were missing - size and evf, epic fail.....

My OMD produces image quality well up to par thanks, I don't need to pixel peep and navel gaze over minute differences that won't matter in real word usage. If you feel the need to do that then may I recommend the Nikon D800, that should just about cover it. Unfortunately it doesn't have a traffic light system of lighting or a purple version but you can't have everything.

Instead of a studio comparison, when was the last time you held or used a good DSLR? The K01 might be a mirrorless but it does have an APSC sensor. The last time I used an OMD, liked the handling and all but the IQ is over rated, its just near previous 12mpx APSC DSLRs.

It looks like a design concept from the 1980s - I used to have a book called AppleDesign that was full of things like this. The only things missing are some upside-down triangles and the big pastel polygons that Patrick Nagel used to put in his pictures.

They should have handed Marc Newson an old Pentax Spotmatic and told him to make something like that, but smaller, and with a screen on the back. Keep the self-timer level on the front. It would have sold loads.

To be honest I think if they'd ditched the full sized K mount and released the same camera half the thickness with a shallow lens mount and decent selection of compact lenses it would have sold quite well.

There's also plenty of objective things wrong with it - much larger than other mirrorless cameras, larger lenses, poor autofocus speed and poor control placement. By using a full size K mount it had the worst of both worlds - large body and lenses but no PDAF or optical viewfinder.

Exactly Gillamoto! Clients want quality images. They don't care if it comes from a 60D, 5DMK2, or K-01. It's all about results. I've been using my X100 and 60D for paid work so far and this Pentax actually beats them both on the IQ side!

Clients who never saw the camera might be unbiased. Unfortunately, others pick photographers the way they pick cars, business suits, attorneys, or CPAs. The one that mixes pink, green, and yellow loses. However, in the case of the K-01, there is a chance that it's innocent appearance would get better candid or family shots than a "threatening" conventional camera.

Absolutely nothing wrong with this camera at all. I highly recommend picking one up discounted before they vanish. It is a great quality, great results, feels good in the hand and is a solid camera. It is not a DSLR or a pocket camera. Who cares about no viewfinder? The fact that it is discontinued does not mean failure. Some of the biggest and most successful companies have discontinued products and they have done quite well. Kudos to Pentax for trying new designs and concepts. In Japan, the K-01 is seen often on the streets but the Western world has been brainwashed into worshipping all things Canon and Nikon--both flawed camera producers with their own list of failures.

Agree than the canons-nikons have had their own flops, and their own manufacturing defects, like the unfortunate original K-5 sensor stains. There were light leaks on one of the canon dslr's, and the nikon V2 looks like marc newson could have given it some badly needed design help. Disagree that K-01 is in any way ungainly in the hand. It lends itself to a solid grip and thus better viewscreen shooting than anything I've handled. Big enough for a longlasting battery in common with my K-7 and K-5. And rubbish to all the noise about the rubber SD card flap. It's fine.

Buh-bye, Marc Newson brick. The time I tested a K-01, I found it to be heavy, awkward and ungainly in the hand. It felt much less enjoyable to use than competing models from Samsung and especially Panasonic, and even worse than some of Pentax's own entry level dSLRs from a few years ago (see the K-m).

If Pentax is looking for a niche to fill, here's one field entirely to themselves: a truly affordable, prosumer friendly medium format system priced in the $4k range for body and lens. I'd love to bump up to the 645D but the price with a couple of useful lenses would get me a new Kia Rio. Integrate the sensor (32MP or so), license Sony's translucent mirror technology for faster operating, throw in the sharpest OLED viewer available, and Pentax might find thousands of grateful pro shooter rushng to the camera. Just an idea, of course, but lower level consumer camera fields are pretty much played out. (Even a d-medium format rangefinder would be welcome...a la Mamiya 7D, for instance.)

Sad but I felt it was doomed from the start. I hope Pentax did not lose too much money with this K-01. For my part, it was a "hate at first sight" for that camera, but at least was it a nice try to propose something different. I hope that this unfortunate attempt won't prevent camera makers from taking some risks in the future...

great ideas come from some bad ones or so called bad ones and lessons are learnt but only when you put something into production do you realize it was perhaps not the best thing to do...but you take risks and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. good on pentax for sticking their neck out.

Ok, you don't like the looks, and you've been trollin' on that point since the moment the news broke. I think that by now we got the message...

I'm looking forward to live in a world populated by people like you, who like firearms, prefer form over function (and thus can't recognize a good item when they see one), and like to spew ridicule over something just because they don't like it.Really.

I like Pentax. I like the Q even albeit I wish it had a bit larger sensor. It's Marc I'm bashing or trolling. The more we speak out the less likely this does not happen to a good company. Camera companies need to rely on market research and not on a diva designer who obviously knows little about what the market wants. I hate to see Pentax tarnished by such an abomination.

By the way. I am an inventor and a designer by nature and have created products for tge market that have succeeded so I know a little bit about creating products. I hate hate hate when companies tell the market what they should want and what is good. Companies that listen succeed. Look at Fuji for a good example. They are not only listening and improving but innovating in great ways. I dont own any fuji cameras now but have in the past but they have the formula right. Don't create products that nobody wants. The Q is a bit off but its at least close to te mark. This was waaaaaay off and came out of ego and not listening.

I understand what it is that you're saying, and in principle I agreeThings I'd like to add:1) Q is more of a "toy" than K-01, hell I was reading yesterday about a guy who broke Q lenses by putting on focal converters!2) K-01 never had ORBS... ;)

Orbs of genius ;)The orbs thing was a bad patch for Fuji but I'd rather have orbs than this ugly thing lol. I like the Q more in theory than reality but if it was that size with the 1" sensor you would truly have something.The gold miners have saying. If you want to find gold look where it's been found before. Look to examples of success rather than the name cahé of a non related product designer. Don't tell the market what it should want. Look for a viable market niche and innovation with something that is not hideous at a good value. No system is perfect yet but a few are well on their way. Please list what they got right with this camera?It works but what else?

It's a pocketable alternative to a dslr that lets you use K lenses.It's even better if you consider M lenses as I can't find a Pentax DSLR that has focus peaking = dirty cheap hi-IQ manual focus camera.You could use a NEX, but the size of the K-to-E adapter negates the small size advantage.Don't tell me m43, as I consider even 1.5x to be a barely acceptable ratio.You can't shoot buildings on the other size of the street when you're sightseeing with a 50mm (=75mm fov), they're too close and you can't take a step back 'cause there's a wall behind you.So you go out with the SMC-M 28mm, which is f/3.5 instead of f/1.7, and it would be a 56mm on a m43, but I digress.

It's even better if you consider M lenses as I can't find a Pentax DSLR that has focus peaking = dirty cheap hi-IQ manual focus camera.You could use a NEX, but the size of the K-to-E adapter negates the small size advantage.Don't tell me m43, as I consider even 1.5x to be a barely acceptable ratio.

The Metabones speed booster will change this.

You can't shoot buildings on the other size of the street when you're sightseeing with a 50mm (=75mm fov), they're too close and you can't take a step back 'cause there's a wall behind you.

There are a few ultra wide angle lenses to chose from not to mention an adapted lens.

So you go out with the SMC-M 28mm, which is f/3.5 instead of f/1.7, and it would be a 56mm on a m43, but I digress

A gentlemans disagreement but I think the M43 system is great and the Fuji system is verging on it.

I've seen metabone's samples: its quality is definitely not great, it adds bulk, and all this for the cost of another camera.UW lenses are big or (for M lenses like the 24mm) expensive.If you're rich then good for you, not everybody on this planet is.

I never said that the m43 system is not good. I said that I have more than enough lenses already, some of which are pretty good, and I don't want to dump more money to buy something I already have, only smaller.The m43 system doesn't allow me to use my lenses effectively for the purpose I have in mind, APSC and FF do.

It's interesting to se that when someone can't substantiate his view with facts they often resort to irony, contempt and offer subjective takes on the matter at hand.Nice picture - the one with penguins and stuff - though.

Thank God that idea has been scrapped now take a leaf out of fuji's design book, I for one would love to see a Pentax K mount designed like an old ME/ME Super. Sepically with all those lovely Ltd lens. Thats what the K-01 should of been nor a stupid designer piece of rubbish.